AP FILE PHOTOA U.S. Border Patrol rescue team performs a rescue demonstration during Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff's visit to a Fort Bliss training facility Thursday, May 18, 2006, in El Paso, Texas. Chertoff said the planned deployment of National Guard troops to the border will bolster the Border Patrol's mission of providing security by serving in a supportive role rather than in an enforcement role. (AP Photo/El Paso Times, Rudy Gutierrez)

Here's some important news I wish you didn't have to read about because it might make you less likely to freely express your opinions.

And when Americans no longer feel comfortable expressing opinions, our Constitution and way of life are clearly in peril.

It's recently come to light that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has been monitoring various news and social interaction sites on the Internet, to identify stories or statements critical of the federal government.

If that's not a bone-chilling thought, I don't know what is. We can only take comfort in the news that a watchdog organization has successfully pressured Congress into having hearings on this matter later this week.

It seems the DHS, which was established to monitor security threats against the United States (the nation, not just its government), hired a private corporation a few years ago to monitor online activity on popular websites like Facebook and Twitter, 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. The goal is to identify published material critical of the government.

Steve Gunn

According to information obtained through a Freedom of Information lawsuit filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the contractors are instructed to provide DHS with information found on the Internet that could be deemed "threats or hazards," as well as "any media reports that reflect adversely on the U.S. government and the Department of Homeland Security's ability to prevent, protect and respond" to crisis situations.

In other words, Big Brother is monitoring your opinions, to make sure you are not any sort of threat.

But what does that mean? Is the agency simply searching for signs of foreign terrorists or Timothy McVeigh types, so they can watch and prevent them from blowing up federal buildings?

I suppose such a program could be rationalized.

But the words "any media reports that reflect adversely on the U.S. government" have to be troubling to anyone who believes in the priceless value of the First Amendment.

There are many troubling ways to interpret this threat. As one headline outlining this situation read, "Group Wins Congressional Hearings on DHS War on anti-Obama dissent."

Could this really be an effort to silence critics of the president? I don't know, and you don't, either.

Of all the American presidents I have watched in action over the years, Barack Obama seems the most paranoid, and the most angry, regarding criticism of his policies. He seems completely convinced that his way is the right way, and anyone who disagrees must have sinister motives.

And it's not just Obama we have to worry about. Will future presidential administrations from either party use this tool to identify, and perhaps find ways to silence, their critics?

The point is, we don't know. But I think it's safe to assume that the federal government does not monitor and identify critics as a harmless hobby. If the government wants to know who you are and what you think, one would naturally have to wonder if there's some sort of strategy in place to deal with those who cross the line.

And what constitutes crossing the line? Again, we don't know.

Our representative form of democracy cannot function without the absolute guarantee of free expression. If we are inhibited in any way from criticizing or questioning our government, we are no longer free. Our political thoughts and actions could become subject to the censorship of the government. That is one cornerstone of a totalitarian state.

I would argue that public knowledge of this program has already had a chilling effect on our freedom. Average citizens and journalists, simply knowing federal agents may be reading what we post online, and not knowing precisely what they find objectionable, will obviously be more careful about the opinions they express, and may choose to stop expressing themselves altogether.

That means some citizens will stop participating in the democratic process because of fear of government reprisal. At that point do we still have a democratic process?

Thankfully, there are organizations like the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which fought to have its FOIA requests honored by the agency, and fought to have a congressional hearing on this situation.

There are times when we have to actively work to protect our constitutional freedoms, or risk losing them to a paranoid and overreaching government.

Too many of us have come to the naive conclusion that our rights are somehow guaranteed, and will always be there for us, just because this is America. Too many of us mistakenly assume that everyone in government respects and honors our right to express ourselves.

Remember, many of the rights we cherish are designed to protect us from government. We can't count on the government to voluntarily honor those rights, any more than we can count on a vicious dog to leave us alone once he breaks loose from his chain.

We, as citizens, must loudly demand that the dog remains on the chain, so we are free to go about our business without feeling constantly threatened by the beast that would like to bite us, if only it had the chance.